1. The Fate of Nitrogen in Biosolids Amended Mineral Sands Mine Soils Jon Dickerson, W. Lee Daniels, Greg Evanylo and Kathryn Haering

2. A Better Title! How I spent my winters chasing nitrates around the Coastal Plain.

3. Typical Appalachian Haul-Back Contour Mine

4. Biosolids plus Woodchips @ 140 Mg/ha on Rocky Spoils applied at PRP in 1989 and 1990 to over 300 acres.

5. Over a five-year period, a 150 ha application of 140 Mg/ha of biosolids + woodchips (C:N = 30) had no effect on ground water NO 3 levels. In fact, NO 3 levels were highest before application due to the use of NH 4 NO 3 explosives!

6. Powell River Project area 10 years after application with biosolids.

7. Land application of municipal biosolids to large experimental plots at Shirley in April 1996.

8. Biosolids cake (C:N = 8) land-applied on gravel mine at 42 Mg/ha.

9. Wheat response to biosolids on unmined control plots at Shirley Plantation one year after application.

10. No FertFert 1.0x biosolids3.0x biosolids 5.0x biosolids7.0x biosolids Figure 1. Shirley Plantation Lysimeters:Biosolids 0 tension @ 1.0 m

11. Nitrate-N leached over two seasons without sawdust added: TreatmentTotal-N AppliedNO 3 -N Lost% App. ---------------- kg/ha ------------------- Control 0 5.9 c N.A. Fertilized 269 7.6 2.8 1X Biosolids 626 19.2 3.1 3X Biosolids 1252 37.4 3.0 5X Biosolids 3130 28.2 0.9 7X Biosolids 4382 59.8 1.4

12. Sampling from zero-tension lysimeter @ 1 m. Well!

13. Aylett Sand & Gravel Mine in October 1998

14. Western portion of site in April of 1999 following fall 1998 application of mixed PVSC and Blue Plains biosolids at 78 and 34 Mg/ha, respectively.

15. Mattaponi R. Adjacent Agricultural Fields

16. Well upgradient from all biosolids applications.

17. Overall Hydrology and Water Quality Results No treatment effects were observed in the surface water on site (sampled at staff gauge and discharge pipe) or the two well between the mine dike and the Mattaponi River that were clearly downgradient. Two of 13 shallow wells on-site showed elevated nitrate-N at ~11 and 35 mg/L for < 2 months and then immediate return to background.

19. Typical tails+slimes pit dewatering. Material in foreground is clayey slimes; background is sandy tailings

20. Iluka Resources Project Large (2000 ha) mineral sands mining operation in upper Coastal Plain. Lime-stabilized biosolids were applied to 10 ha mining pit reclaimed without topsoil in August of 2002. Water quality monitored monthly at 6 ground water wells and 2 surface water discharge points.

22. Lime stabilized biosolids being applied at 35 T/Ac

24. Iluka Rate Study Objectives To compare the effect of biosolids applications at higher than agronomic rates with standard fertilization practices on nitrate-N leaching To compare the effects of biosolids and standard fertilization practices on vegetation establishment and production

25. Study Site Location in Dinwiddie County, Virginia

27. Treatment NP2O5P2O5 K2OK2O -------------------- kg ha -1 --------------------- 1. 0 N Control0400175 2. Fertilized Control115400175 3. Agron Rate of Biosolids (4.2 Mg/ha) + P&K121 349 (as biosolids)+109 7.3 (as biosolids)+167 4. Reclam. Rate (5X) Biosolids + K607 1748 (as biosolids) 36.5 (as biosolids)+137

28. North Wells 1&2 up-gradient Buried Barrel Plot dimension 3m x 5m Plots 1-16  Wells 3, 4, & 5 down-gradient Lysimeter barrels 3 Wells Down 4 reps; each plot 3 x 5 m N 2 Wells Up

32. Parameter Value Method ---- mg/kg---- Solids300,000 (30%) SM-2540G TKN54,500 (5.45%) SM-4500-NH 3 C- TKN NH 4 -N22,900 SM-4500-NH 3 C Org N31,600 Calculation P36,300 SW6010C K1400 SW6010C Table 3: Alexandria Sanitation Authority biosolids analysis, and analytical methods by A&L Eastern Laboratories (SM = American Public Health Association, 2011; SW = U.S. EPA, 2012).

34. Initial plot seeding, April 19, 2011

35. Forage SpeciesSeeding Rate, kg ha -1 Tall Fescue 75 German Millet 30 Cereal Rye 45 April and September 2011 species and rates. After initial seeding failed in April, lysimeters were reseeded in late May by hand applying 40-50g of seed per lysimeter. Second attempts failed, so in mid-September, tall fescue and cereal rye were seeded again at rates below with an additional 115 kg/ha N to fertilized N treatment only.

36. N fertilized control; July 2011

37. Agronomic 1X biosolids; July 2011

38. 0 N control; May 2012 at time of vegetation sampling.

39. N-fertilized (230 kg/ha PAN) plot in May 2012.

40. Reclamation rate biosolids (21 Mg/ha) at May 2012 harvest date.

41. Treatment Sept. 2011 Biomass (p=0.057) May 2012 Biomass (p=0.213) Total Biomass (p=0.045) N-uptake kg ha -1 (p=0.349) ------------------- kg ha -1 ------------------- Control2740a*1145a3885b30.5a Fertilized Control 6298a3667a10,661a79.4a Biosolids: Agronomic Rate 9802a2862a12,979a93.3a Biosolids: Reclamation Rate 9202a4028a13,231a133.2a * Treatment values followed by the same letter for given date are not different (α=0.05: Fishers LSD). Forage biomass yield and N-uptake from (left to right) for September 2011 and May 2012 samplings, combined yields and total annual plant N-uptake.

42. Treatment PAN Applied Total-N A pplied Total-N Leached 2 Nitrate- N Leached Ammon.- N Leached PAN/Total-N Lost by Leaching ----------------------------- kg ha -1 ------------------------------- -------- % ------- Control 0.0 1.6b 1 1.0b0.6N/A Fertilized Control 230* 62.4a59.3a3.227.1 / 27.1 Biosolids: Agronomic Rate (1x) 1217631.3b0.5b0.81.1 / 0.06 Biosolids: Reclamation Rate (5x) 60738007.2b5.6b1.61.2 / 0.1 * Two applications of 115 kg ha -1. 1 Treatment means followed by the same letter for given date are not different Fisher’s protected LSD. 2 Total-N is equal to sum of nitrate-N plus ammonia-N. Table 6. Estimated PAN applied to each treatment, and total mass N, nitrate-N, ammonium-N and % N lost by leaching.

43. Nitrate-N in leachates over time Mean (n=4) + 1 SE

44. Cumulative mass nitrate-N leached over time

45. Ortho-P in leachates over time

46. Nitrate-N in shallow (< 5 m) groundwater over time. Wells 1 and 2 are up-gradient and wells 3, 4 and 5 are down-gradient.

47. Conclusions All treatments produced relatively poor vegetation in both years, but the 1x reclamation treatment did not need to receive additional N fertilization the first fall and was able to maintain a similar or even better vegetation stand over the life of the experiment than the N-fertilized control. Both biosolids treatments were superior and much more efficient in terms of plant N-supply than conventional fertilization in this setting.

48. Conclusions The only treatment that leached nitrate-N over the EPA standard for drinking water in this study period was the conventional fertilizer treatment. While the biosolids treatments also produced a limited amount of nitrate-N leaching, this event occurred during the first winter and only lasted a couple months.

49. Conclusions Both biosolids treatments lost less than 1% of their total N applied (vs. 27% for the N-fertilized plots). Furthermore, these minor losses occurred under harsh environmental conditions where establishment of an N-assimilating vegetative cover was suboptimal. Some leaching losses were also noted for ortho-P. While some P leaching loss was evident for all treatments, it was less than 0.15% of total P applied in the worse case (5x biosolids).

50. Acknowledgments We want to thank Iluka Resources for financial support, Carl Clarke for his assistance in plot establishment and maintenance, and the Alexandria Sanitation Authority for biosolids and logistical support.